The history of the development of these structures and some of the dilemmas of their operation are discussed.A number of policy issues are considered against this background: regulation and licensing, CAM in primary care, reimbursement for CAM treatment, and the inclusion of CAM in education and training for the health professions.I had found out the hard way that it can get pretty cold in Israel when I spent the semester in Jerusalem and because of the bad heating systems and the desert architecture (which keep the cold in and the heat out), you unfortunately need a coat inside, as well as outside. I made aliyah through this amazing organization, called Nefesh B’Nefesh that basically hands out money to people who want to make Aliyah to Israel. Besides handing out money, it also helps with the brutal Israeli bureaucracy.I figured that this flight from Minnesota to New York was going to be the most uncomfortable flight in my lifetime – I was soon proved wrong. When I first heard of it I thought it was like the Jewish “Make A Wish” Foundation, but for people who are not sick . The things this organization can do to get around the bureaucracy should be documented as modern-day miracles, right up there with the biblical ones.The analysis considers the reasons for CAM use, number of practitioners, the frequency of CAM use and some of its correlates, and how CAM is regulated.The structure of the relationship between the conventional health care system and CAM is discussed in the public sector, which provides two-thirds of CAM services, and in the private sector, which provides about one-third.
And yet this bill co-opts well-meaning public concern about these threats, using it to suppress free speech about Israel that will have a chilling effect on the work of faculty like us.
Our deep commitment to this material is what compels us to oppose South Carolina House bill 3643.
This bill seeks to instruct state colleges and universities to declare the expression of certain positions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be anti-Semitic and to take appropriate action, if warranted, in order to “protect” Jewish students.
How can we possibly nurture an open environment to consider big questions like the nature of the modern state and competing claims between and within nations if, as the bill indicates, such discourse is deemed anti-Semitic?
Must we declare the vast majority of rabbinic intelligentsia of a century ago to be anti-Semitic because they opposed the idea of Jewish statehood?